Snake movies never were intended to be genuine horror movies where assorted characters turn out to be cardboard cutouts. A sequel, standalone or direct, just isn't worth it if not in demand in the first place. In fact, only a younger audience would be more than pleased to watch this cheesy flick unlike the older audience, especially after seven years. If I was 15 in 1997, by 2004 I would be roughly 22 and at this age I would not be thrilled or encapsulated in terror by the very sight of the monster snakes. So I would not even consider this worth my time.
The premise in the movie is that a group of scientists venture into the Borneo rainforest to collect a sample of blood orchids. They believe that its essence is key to prolonging youth and vitality. They pick the wrong time to do this because their expedition coincides with the rainy season, which also happens to be the breeding season for the, get this, anacondas. Anyone with a brain cell would never be oblivious to the fact that anacondas are native to south America, not south-east Asia. When this strikes the mind, nobody could ever take this movie seriously. If you think that this error isn't enough to destroy every expectation, try to sit more flaws.
The characters: I would be more than impatient with several of those who are not native to southern USA to fake the accent used there. Also, there are two black guys, one who is mature and another who is just so annoying that you wish he was just killed off. This one black guy is such a whelp that his whining is enough to attract several potential predators native to the rainforest. As with some horror B-movie, none of the characters are to be cared for but to be served up for the mayhem. Do I have to point out that these actors are more interested in their paycheck than in bumping up their acting? Their chemistry is a frequent misfire. And one special trivium: did you notice that not once female character has ever been devoured by the snakes, which are all male? It sounds like a typical male animal whose lust has just taken hold of its mental capacity.
The only star of this movie that deserves to be taken seriously is that monkey from Ace Ventura: Pet Detective (1994), named Kong. Kong the monkey has his own adventures in the jungle, and stands out as a character who can show more genuine reactions and solid concerns to take his role seriously. I think this is the only reason to watch this movie. If not for him, I think I would just fall asleep.
The snakes in the movie are just laughable: the CGI is so cheap you would just accept that this movie is just a knockoff produced by a class in university for a pet project. I can't take this seriously because in the last movie at least there was more animatronics than CGI, and the animatronics themselves are more realistic than the CGI. Cheap CGI dissolves anybody's interest in the monsters in question.
But to this movie's credit, at least it does explain why anacondas grow abnormally large as was the case in the original movie, and also their behaviors. Unfortunately, seeing how this movie takes place in a different location I just wouldn't think this as a strong point.
A theatrical non-canonical sequel, not worth your time and money, is worth passing. I would just forget this movie existed and consider that some people who haven't watched the first movie would be more than intrigued by this movie, especially if they do not notice the recycling of plot points from the last movie. A snake movie with plenty of flaws does not count as a horror movie for adults but for children and preteens.
No comments:
Post a Comment